the Respondent due to the Respondent's prior use of the trademark on the blankets it sells. In rejoinder to this issue, the Applicant‟s Counsel submitted that for the Respondent to have locus standi, the Respondent's right must have been breached by the Applicant or the right it enjoys through the authority of a third party. The Respondent disclosed 3 entities as being the manufacturers of the same purple moon blankets, to wit; BINGLING ENTERPRISES LIMITED, JIANSGU OUMAN TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY CO. LIMITED & LUOY ANG CITY GUANLlNLlDE BLANKET FACTORY. The Respondent confirmed that amongst the alleged manufacturers, LUOY ANG CITY GUANLlNLlDE BLANKET FACTORY is the Registered Owner of the Trademark in China and yet it is not in dispute that the Respondent possesses no authority from LUOY ANG CITY GUANLlNLlDE BLANKET FACTORY to challenge the Applicant's registration in Uganda as required by Law. It therefore follows that the registration of the Applicant's trademark in Uganda can only be challenged by a Registered Owner of the said trademark in another jurisdiction by Application for de-registration of the contested mark in Uganda, in which case the Respondent is neither the Registered Owner of the said trademark in China nor an Authorized Agent of such a Registered Owner. On the contrary, the Applicant has the locus standi to restrain the Respondent from using the Applicant's Trademark by virtue of the certificate of registration issued in accordance with the law and has the legal mandate to trade in the goods bearing the Applicant's trademark. He reiterated his submissions that the points of law disclosed in the Applicant's Submissions dispose of the Main Suit and prayed that judgment be entered against the Respondent with Costs. Ruling I have duly considered the Applicants application, which was commenced as an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the Respondent from using or trading in the goods bearing the trademark of the Applicant. However at the commencement of the hearing, the Applicant‟s Counsel opted to raise points of law which go to the merits of the suit and in effect abandoned the application for a temporary injunction per se. The points of law raised are as follows: 1. Whether the Applicant's registration of the Trade Mark confers Exclusive Rights to the Applicant? 2. Whether the Respondent has Locus Standi to challenge the Applicant's Registration of the said trademark? The first question of whether the Applicant‟s registration of the trade Mark confers exclusive rights to the Applicant merely asserts that by being the registered owner in Uganda, the Applicant enjoys exclusive rights to the trademark in question. The second issue of whether the Respondent has locus standi to challenge the Applicant‟s registration of the trademark deals with the counterclaim of the Respondent. The issue proposes that the Respondent has no right to challenge the Applicant‟s registration. Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 10